Mass Effect 3 ending, my take

Zloth · July 14, 2012

I just (finally) finished. Great ending! I went with the "green" option, extended version.

What is all this talk about the relays exploding?? They didn't appear to explode to me. I just rechecked the video I saved and it looks to me like the relays are emitting, not exploding.

Why was the Normandy so far away? Because the Admiral saw the Cruicible was activated and he expected it to start blowing away Reapers - so he got the whole fleet out of there, including the Normandy. He didn't want the Cruicible taking the fleet down along with the Reapers. Why they landed where they did, I don't know. It might simply have been Joker's home planet.

Why did the "Reaper Boy" offer to let Shepard destroy the Reapers and itself? Because it was no longer certain that biological and mechanical beings must fight. It witnessed a pretty strong counter-example with the Geth, at least in my game. I don't think it was convinced (which is why it wanted the merge option) but it had enough doubt that it was willing to let Shepard decide. Remember this isn't a human we are talking about, it's an AI who's only purpose is to protect the galaxy from unending bio vs. mech wars. That is its highest concern, not self-preservation.

The only thing that bothered me about the ending was the way the Normandy swooped in to pick up my fallen teammates. THAT made no sense! If it could sweep in there, why not drop all of us right next to the beam? Ah well.

One good thing about this controversy - when Shepard got nailed close to the beam I actually thought that was going to be the end of the story. Game over, roll the credits while Reapers do their reaping. THAT would have been a bad ending!

Monk · July 20, 2012

One lit professor's take on the issue:

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11435886/13#11470730

The argument makes a lot of sense. In summary, the three endings go against Shepard's character and the theme of the story spread throughout the three games. Thus, we have a broken story.

But there's a refusal ending, and it doesn't follow from EMS as it ends in defeat. This very much goes against RPGs and video games in general, where the player's achievements are supposed to affect the outcome. Thus, we have not just a broken story but a broken game.

Only minor problems were repaired. The major ones (these two points) were not solved because that would have involved rewriting the end.

mute · July 25, 2012

Funny thing, the "bad" ending internet talked about was one reason to finish the game, and i really liked it. It wasnt bad, i thought it was good. I played the enhanced ending.

One thing i do feel was most wrong with the game was the melodromatic movie sequences evrywhere where you just looked at a bad bad movie.

In the earlier games you almost always could influence things with a right or a left mouse click. Now you had to stick with what the director thought would be cool to happen. I don't know if it was many, but the first sequene on mars made my mind up that i thought it was rubbish evrytime it happened!

Zloth · July 30, 2012

I'm not buying what the professor is saying at all.

Remember, these choices are not being created by Shepard. They are being created by the REAPERS. The Reapers believed that biologicals and mechanicals could never live together but they had enough humility to see that they could be wrong. If the biologicals and mechanicals could work together well enough when they have the technology to build the Cruicible then maybe it is possible for the two forms of life to live together….

…Or maybe it just means that this war between mechanicals and biologicals would be delayed until the technology was advanced enough that the losing side could actually destroy the entire galaxy.

The race that made the Reapers originally tried to unite mechanicals and biologicals but always failed. Shepard had shown that he/she could unite the galaxy no matter the form so maybe Shepard could succeed where the pre-Reapers failed. Thus the control ending. (Yes, power does corrupt. Do the Reapers look like a race that understood that concept?)

The 'just stop killing us and let us work it out for ourselves' option was not there, which is the one I think most "good Shepards" would have opted for. While the Reapers had just enough humility to believe that their "periodic genocide" might not be the best solution, that doesn't mean they are going to risk the destruction of the galaxy. But what they could do is wipe out all the mechanicals. Biologicals will build mechanicals again but, after this massive attack, hopefully they will be smart enough not to build them as anything but TOTAL slaves to their masters. It's still an awful risk in Reaper eyes but one they are now willing to take. Hence the destroy option.

The 'synthesis' option is the one the Reapers are clearly hoping for. It was probably the one the pre-Reapers were trying for but could never pull off. The Reapers had been storing up life in a mechanical/biological combo for eons in the hope that this solution would come to pass. Dray seems to think this makes everybody the same but that just isn't in there. Each race is still different. Maybe not as different as before but still quite different. If they weren't, there would have been no point in preserving the old species.

Dray also makes a big thing about how all three endings go against the principles in the rest of the game. Yeah, so? Here we have a new principle: losers do not dictate terms. Of course, if you want you can also refuse all of the options and take pot shots at the ghost. This triggers the secret ending where you prove to the Reapers that, even though you united the galaxy, you're too idealistic to understand that final principle. I'm sure the Reapers will be quite perplexed as to how anyone could get so far while being so detached from reality that they don't even understand when they are beaten.

Monk · July 31, 2012

You did not read the professor's argument correctly. The point isn't whether or not the choices were made by Shepard (obviously, they're not), it's whether or not he will accept them. Based on his character, he will refuse to accept all of them because that's what he had been doing throughout the game. The only logical choice is refusal.

The point that "losers do not dictate terms" is completely illogical because we are dealing with a video game where the player can win. If it turns out that he will lose whatever he does, then what is the point of making this game, with its choices and consequences throughout?

Zloth · August 1, 2012

OK, I'm not bothering with spoiler tags. The topic title is enough, methinks.

Monk said:
You did not read the professor's argument correctly. The point isn't whether or not the choices were made by Shepard (obviously, they're not), it's whether or not he will accept them. Based on his character, he will refuse to accept all of them because that's what he had been doing throughout the game. The only logical choice is refusal.

Huh? This is a role playing game. My first Shepard didn't like the choices but refusal would have resulted in FAR more pain and suffering (in her opinion) than any of the other choices so there's no way she could have picked it. My second Shepard is going to be elated when he hears of the 'control' option. He'll have the whole galaxy outfitted for war and ready to make its move on the Andromeda galaxy in no time, with humanity ruling it all. An extreme idealist might pick the refusal option and a Shepard that loves life but not machines (perhaps because of what happend in Mass Effect 1) might go for the 'destroy' option.

The point that "losers do not dictate terms" is completely illogical because we are dealing with a video game where the player can win. If it turns out that he will lose whatever he does, then what is the point of making this game, with its choices and consequences throughout?

My second Shepard will definitely win if he can get to the 'control' option. My first Shepard did win. She didn't win by as much as she wanted but she did put a stop to the Reaper attacks and saved billions of lives. You can't call that a defeat or even a tie. I think "marginal victory" would be the term I would use.

And where did this idea that video games can always be won come from? You can't win at Pac Man, Donkey Kong, Asteroids, Nethack... Or are you saying that this specific game is one you can win? Assuming that you can win the game, proving that you can't win, and then concluding that the game is broken isn't logical at all!

purpleblob · August 2, 2012

Isn't it based on point of view? Yes, it may be victory in terms of you've stopped reapers, good for Shepard *clap clap*

As a player, I would have left feeling like absolute crap because I had to use "Reapers' option" to put an end to it, rather than my/Shepard's own method. It feels like there's something fishy about it. True enough, I hated all the endings except for maybe destroy ending. Shepard becoming "Reapers" sounds really fishy imo. Or even creating new race by mixing organics and synthetics. Who said they wanted to be reborn as a new race?? Did Organics wanted it? Or even Reapers? I certainly wouldn't like it if it was forced on me.

Yes, that's exactly it. The whole options were forced on us. Almost like Bioware telling me, "suck it up princess".

rossrjensen · August 2, 2012

Yes, you have to make a tough call at the end, but personally I think the best games force you to make those types of tough calls.

Gaxkang · August 2, 2012

I like a tough call to get the result I think is best and most satisfying for me. ME offers you 3 unpalatable, unsatisfying and incomprehensible choices. I don't think the best games tend to do that...

Zloth · August 3, 2012

purpleblob said:
Yes, that's exactly it. The whole options were forced on us. Almost like Bioware telling me, "suck it up princess".

Or almost like a galactic empire, billions of years older than your own, was forcing it on you. We got our fairy tale ending in the first ME - time for something a bit more interesting.

Gaxkang - no, the game offers your CHARACTER three (actually 4) possible endings. They all seem pretty easy to comprehend. Whether or not your character will like them depends on what kind of character you are playing.

I certainly like this ending a lot more than Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The choices were fine but the results the choices led to seemed odd to me.

P.S. Now I've got a hankering to watch Brazil again. And I do NOT mean the Americanized ending!

purpleblob · August 3, 2012

You are certainly entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I still don't think the ending makes sense. Especially if you pick the refusal ending, the star child's voice turns into Reaper's angry voice and says "so be it" before they proceed to continue the cycle. So basically, Reapers can still continue the cycle and yet the star child told Shepard that the method is now flawed and it won't work. So wtf? He says it won't work so he give Shepard 3 choices (which to me seems utterly stupid) and yet he decides to go with *flawed* old method of harvesting. Where is the logic?

Also, the 3 choices given to Shepard doesn't make sense either.

1. Synthesis option - Star child thinks ultimate method is to form a new race by combining Organics and Machines. Ok, so he knew the "best" method already. Why the fuck didn't he do this earlier rather than harvesting all the Organics once couple billion years?

2. Destroy ending - Star child worked so hard to oversee cycle continue however fucking long it was going on for and yet he simply gives Shepard a choice to destroy that cycle which will eventually lead to cycle of Organics being destroyed by Machines (if we follow Star Child's logic of what will happen). Good work there!

3. Control ending - What is this? Shepard become some kind of Master Flood mind? This sounds absolutely absurd. I thought each Reapers have minds of their own. And all of sudden, they share the thoughts/opinion of Shepard? What is this shit?

Monk · August 3, 2012

Zloth said:
Huh? This is a role playing game. My first Shepard didn't like the choices but refusal would have resulted in FAR more pain and suffering (in her opinion) than any of the other choices so there's no way she could have picked it. My second Shepard is going to be elated when he hears of the 'control' option. He'll have the whole galaxy outfitted for war and ready to make its move on the Andromeda galaxy in no time, with humanity ruling it all. An extreme idealist might pick the refusal option and a Shepard that loves life but not machines (perhaps because of what happend in Mass Effect 1) might go for the 'destroy' option.

It's only an RPG based on classes, etc. Shepard's character is relatively the same whether in paladin or renegade mode, as explained clearly by the lit professor. He would not be "elated" at all, especially given the content of much of the three games. Again, the prof explains why in the link given earlier. The same problem takes place with the two other endings, which is why the story of this game is broken.

As for the fourth ending, the EMS, etc., does not affect the outcome, which makes it a broken game.

My second Shepard will definitely win if he can get to the 'control' option. My first Shepard did win. She didn't win by as much as she wanted but she did put a stop to the Reaper attacks and saved billions of lives. You can't call that a defeat or even a ie. I think "marginal victory" would be the term I would use.

No, that's not a victory, as the lit professor explains clearly. And since EMS, etc., barely affects it, it doesn't even matter.

And where did this idea that video games can always be won come from? You can't win at Pac Man, Donkey Kong, Asteroids, Nethack… Or are you saying that this specific game is one you can win? Assuming that you can win the game, proving that you can't win, and then concluding that the game is broken isn't logical at all!

Where did you get this idea that a space opera adventure with RPG elements, plus EMS, which essentially allows you to develop your military forces to ensure victory, should logically end in defeat?

Your last sentence makes no sense. The fact that you can't win no matter how many resources you acquire to ensure that makes this a broken game!

It's like developing an RPG where you get to strengthen your character and team mates, only to meet a final boss that you cannot defeat! In this case, it's not even a final battle, just cut scenes leading to three endings that go against Shepard's character and a fourth that doesn't follow whatever actions he took throughout the game to ensure victory.

Monk · August 3, 2012

Purplebob gets it right. The only way to have ended this game correctly would have been the same as the content of the rest of the game, if not all three games: a final battle where Shepard employs whatever military resources he was able to obtain. This could have been the outcome of refusal: victory or destruction. Those not interested in this could choose the other three endings.

fatBastard() · August 4, 2012

purpleblob said:
Also, the 3 choices given to Shepard doesn't make sense either.

1. Synthesis option - Star child thinks ultimate method is to form a new race by combining Organics and Machines. Ok, so he knew the "best" method already. Why the fuck didn't he do this earlier rather than harvesting all the Organics once couple billion years?

2. Destroy ending - Star child worked so hard to oversee cycle continue however fucking long it was going on for and yet he simply gives Shepard a choice to destroy that cycle which will eventually lead to cycle of Organics being destroyed by Machines (if we follow Star Child's logic of what will happen). Good work there!

3. Control ending - What is this? Shepard become some kind of Master Flood mind? This sounds absolutely absurd. I thought each Reapers have minds of their own. And all of sudden, they share the thoughts/opinion of Shepard? What is this shit?

Bingo!

This is exactly the way I feel as well.

The only ending that makes some kind of sense to my Shepard is the destroy ending but the "execution" of it reminds me of the ending of "Independence Day" where Jeff Goldblum uploads a virus to the alien mothership's computers causing it to explode ... wft?!? You can't even execute a Windows virus on a Mac or a Linux box let alone a completely alien computer system. How/Why did the red pulse only target AI's and not all electronics? We know that the Reapers are "individuals" (they have their own names) whereas the Geth are a hive conscience, so why were both targeted by the same red pulse?

As many others have said: The problem is not that the endings are all "bad" (as in not happy endings) but simply because none of them make any sense in the context of the games.

Monk said:
It's like developing an RPG where you get to strengthen your character and team mates, only to meet a final boss that you cannot defeat! In this case, it's not even a final battle, just cut scenes leading to three endings that go against Shepard's character and a fourth that doesn't follow whatever actions he took throughout the game to ensure victory.

This is exactly what happened in Divinity 2 (simply denied the final battle altogether) and Mask of the Betrayer (with 1 line of dialogue at the end the entire reason for my quest was denied). That is also why Divinity 2, Mask of the Betrayer and Mass Effect 3 are in my top 3 of worst game endings EVAR!

Zloth · August 4, 2012

purpleblob said:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I still don't think the ending makes sense. Especially if you pick the refusal ending, the star child's voice turns into Reaper's angry voice and says "so be it" before they proceed to continue the cycle. So basically, Reapers can still continue the cycle and yet the star child told Shepard that the method is now flawed and it won't work. So wtf? He says it won't work so he give Shepard 3 choices (which to me seems utterly stupid) and yet he decides to go with *flawed* old method of harvesting. Where is the logic?

The Reapers were built by a race (I'm calling them pre-Reapers) that wants to END the bio/synth wars. The pre-Reapers do NOT like this method one bit, but quick genocides every few thousand years beats endless wars for millions of years. The methods is the lesser of two evils and was always flawed. They thought they could get rid of it via Shepard but, if Shepard is going to refuse to do anything, they are stuck with their old method.

Also, the 3 choices given to Shepard doesn't make sense either.

1. Synthesis option - Star child thinks ultimate method is to form a new race by combining Organics and Machines. Ok, so he knew the "best" method already. Why the fuck didn't he do this earlier rather than harvesting all the Organics once couple billion years?

They didn't say. I would guess it's because the bios and synths hated each other too much - or at least the Reapers thought they did. They weren't exactly taking opinion polls. Also, they didn't just harvest the organics, they wiped out ALL the advanced civilizations.

2. Destroy ending - Star child worked so hard to oversee cycle continue however fucking long it was going on for and yet he simply gives Shepard a choice to destroy that cycle which will eventually lead to cycle of Organics being destroyed by Machines (if we follow Star Child's logic of what will happen). Good work there!

As I said earlier, this would give the organics a BIG head start over the synths. Given this cycle's ability to work with organics and the knowledge of just how horrible the bio/synth wars were before, there's a good chance they could build all their synths in such a way that there would be no wars in the future. Not a GREAT chance - it's still a big risk for the Reapers to take - but a good enough chance to take a shot at it if Shepard thinks it could work.

3. Control ending - What is this? Shepard become some kind of Master Flood mind? This sounds absolutely absurd. I thought each Reapers have minds of their own. And all of sudden, they share the thoughts/opinion of Shepard? What is this shit?

No, the Reapers are some sort of pre-programmed nanites or something. It was mentioned in the story earier. Their governed by some sort of AI - one that probably isn't very advanced at all. The Reapers have no self will like a human, geck, or even EDI. They are just programmed to blow away all advanced life every few thousand years and watch to see if any of the pre-Reapers assumptions are proving to be false.

And that will be enough of that. Star Child? Flood mind? You talk about logic but you try to prove your arguments via cussing and insults. If I want that sort of argument, I'll just go to the local playground.

purpleblob · August 5, 2012

Zloth said:
And that will be enough of that. Star Child? Flood mind? You talk about logic but you try to prove your arguments via cussing and insults. If I want that sort of argument, I'll just go to the local playground.

Who's trying to win with insults now?

Like I said, you are certainly entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

Yes, do me a favour and go back to local playground. I'm not going to bother anymore since these type of craps been said already millions of times.

Mass Effect 3 ending, my take

Zloth

I smell a... wumpus!?

Monk

Watcher

mute

Sentinel

Zloth

I smell a... wumpus!?

Monk

Watcher

Zloth

I smell a... wumpus!?

purpleblob

Guest

rossrjensen

Keeper of the Watch

Gaxkang

Sentinel

Zloth

I smell a... wumpus!?

purpleblob

Guest

Monk

Watcher

Monk

Watcher

fatBastard()

Hello, I'm a Zombaholic

Zloth

I smell a... wumpus!?

purpleblob

Guest